Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (June 19–June 25, 2023), Part 1

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers (June 19–June 25, 2023), Part 1

Legal Sidebari

Congressional Court Watcher: Recent
Appellate Decisions of Interest to Lawmakers
(June 19–June 25, 2023), Part 1
June 26, 2023
The federal courts issue hundreds of decisions every week in cases involving diverse legal disputes. This
Sidebar series selects decisions from the past week that may be of particular interest to federal lawmakers,
focusing on orders and decisions of the Supreme Court and precedential decisions of the courts of appeals
for the thirteen federal circuits. Selected cases typically involve the interpretation or validity of federal
statutes and regulations, or constitutional issues relevant to Congress’s lawmaking and oversight
functions.
Some cases identified in this Sidebar, or the legal questions they address, are examined in other CRS
general distribution products. Members of Congress and congressional staff may click here to subscribe to
the CRS Legal Update and receive regular notifications of new products and upcoming seminars by CRS
attorneys.
This week’s Congressional Court Watcher is divided into two parts because of the number of notable
decisions issued over the past week. This Legal Sidebar (Part 1) discusses Supreme Court activity from
June 19 through June 25, 2023. A forthcoming companion Legal Sidebar (Part 2) addresses decisions of
the U.S. courts of appeals from that period.
Decisions of the Supreme Court
Last week, the Supreme Court issued eight decisions in cases where it had heard arguments:
• Arbitration: The Court ruled 5-4 that an interlocutory appeal from a district court order
denying a motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act requires the
district court to stay adjudication of proceedings pending resolution of the question of
arbitrability (Coinbase, Inc. v. Bielski).
• Criminal Law & Procedure: In consolidated cases, the Court clarified in a 6-3 decision
that under RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community—which held that a plaintiff has a
cognizable private right of action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act only by alleging a “domestic injury” to business or property—
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
LSB10984
CRS Legal Sidebar
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
determining whether a plaintiff suffered a “domestic injury” is a context-specific inquiry,
focusing on whether the circumstances surrounding the injury show it arose in the United
States. The Court declined to establish a bright-line rule treating the location of the
plaintiff’s residence as determinative (Yegiazaryan v. Smagin; CMB Monaco v. Smagin).
• Criminal Law & Procedure: The Court held, in a 6-3 ruling, that while a federal inmate
may file a federal habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 when a second or
successive collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 may be “inadequate or ineffective to
test the legality of his detention,” § 2255 is not inadequate where the Supreme Court has
issued a new interpretation of a criminal statute that circuit precedent had foreclosed at
the time of the inmate’s trial, appeal, and first § 2255 motion. The Court emphasized that
a § 2241 petition cannot act as an end-run around the requirement that a second or
successive § 2255 motion can be filed only if there is “newly discovered evidence” or “a
new rule of constitutional law.” (Jones v. Hendrix).
• Criminal Law & Procedure: Affirming the lower appellate court’s judgment by a 6-3
vote, the Court held that the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause—which, among
other things, generally gives criminal defendants the right to cross-examine witnesses
against them—was not violated when a co-defendant’s confession was admitted in a joint
trial, but the confession was altered in order to not directly inculpate the non-confessing
co-defendant. The majority concluded that the alterations (which used “the other person”
in place of the non-confessing co-defendant’s name), coupled with a limiting instruction
that the confession could not be used against the non-confessing co-defendant, satisfied
Sixth Amendment requirements (Samia v. United States).
• Immigration: In consolidated cases, the Court held 6-3 that to qualify as an “offense
related to the obstruction of justice” constituting an aggravated felony under 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(43)(S) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, the predicate offense need not
be the subject of a pending investigation or judicial proceeding. Examples of offenses
covered under this expansive interpretation, the Court suggested, might include situations
where a defendant threatened a witness to prevent that witness from reporting a crime
(Pugin v. Garland; Garland v. Cordero-Garcia).
• Immigration: By an 8-1 vote, the Court ruled that state plaintiffs failed to satisfy
constitutional standing requirements to challenge a 2021 Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) memorandum setting forth immigration arrest and removal priorities and
guidance for immigration officers. The controlling opinion, joined by five Justices,
emphasized the executive branch’s traditional enforcement discretion, and decided that
precedent and historical practice counseled against the judiciary entertaining a suit
requesting it to direct DHS to alter its enforcement policies to make more arrests. The
ruling effectively enables DHS to implement the 2021 memorandum, which had been
vacated by a lower court (United States v. Texas).
• Immigration: In a 7-2 ruling, the Court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), which
makes it a criminal offense to “encourage or induce” an alien to illegally enter or reside
in the United States, is not constitutionally overbroad, reaching no further than the
purposeful solicitation or facilitation of specific acts known to be unlawful (United States
v. Hansen).
• Indian Law: By a 5-4 vote in consolidated cases, the Court held that the United States
does not have a judicially enforceable trust responsibility under treaties with the Navajo
Nation to take affirmative steps to ensure the Nation has an adequate water supply,
including through waters supplied from the mainstream Colorado River (Arizona v.
Navajo Nation; Dep’t of the Interior v. Navajo Nation).

Congressional Research Service
3
•
The Court also granted certiorari in one case for the October 2023 Term:
• Sovereign Immunity: The Court has been asked to resolve to circuit split on whether
the Fair Credit Reporting Act—which defines a “person” subject to the act’s substantive
requirements as including a “government or governmental subdivision or agency”—
unambiguously waives the federal government’s sovereign immunity allowing the United
States to be held liable for civil damages under the act (Dep’t of Agric. v. Kirtz).

Author Information

Michael John Garcia

Deputy Assistant Director/ALD

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

LSB10984 · VERSION 1 · NEW